Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Law Enforcement in Training: Human Nature

Deception Detection is difficult work. If it was as simple as it is sometimes portrayed, or if reading a face expression sufficed, we'd all do it, and deception would be greatly hindered in its progress in society. A twitch of a leg, a hand over the mouth, a "micro expression", and so on, all represent various short cuts in one way or another, and as in the nature of short cuts, rates of success inevitably betray the employer of such. We live in a culture that may be viewed as the ultimate expression of narcissism, where our feelings overrule reason, our children are raised to believe that how they feel is more important than obedience, and where even science must be subordinated to emotion. Law Enforcement, however, does not succumb easily to folly. In Statement Analysis Training, the investigator/analyst begins by learning some simple principles of sensitivity in language, and moves on to detecting deception, content analysis, and on to giving a detailed profile of the subject (speaker/writer). In initially testing law enforcement on detecting deception, scores are often poor. Why?Because professional experience leads them to incessant contact with deception to the point where "everyone is lying."Training over comes this prejudice with only initial resistance. What brings success is when the law enforcement professional begins to recognize that outright lying is rare, and that in a statement where the subject is deceptive it is very likely to find 90% or more of reliable information (content). In short, they learn to let the subject's own words guide them to truth. Law Enforcement cannot afford error. They have cases in which the initial analysis is going to be immediately tested against the evidence, the case development, the polygraph, the confession and so on. They must see accuracy to be convinced to study. After becoming quite good at detecting deception, they move into deeper and deeper content analysis. This allows them to know the case details before the investigation even begins. Over and over they find that the deceptive suspect "honestly" guided them to the truth. This is thrilling and fuels them to more and more study. Their superiors are impressed and their solve rate moves up. Promotions are granted. Professional satisfaction is powerful. Then, they move on to the most challenging and exciting aspect of all: psycho-linguistic profiling. This is where they learn four things about their subject from the subject's words:1. The subject's background This tells them if the subject is a male or female, white or black, young or old, and so on. This recognizes the impact of sex, race, culture, age (etc) have on language. 2. The subject's experiences This tells them what, for example, the subject has experienced in life such as work profession. This recognizes that, for example, being in the military is going to impact language. Prior crimes is another example, as this experience can enter language. 3. The subject's priorities Here is where we often find exactly why the subject wrote out his statement. Was it to clear himself? Was it to confess? Was it to steer the investigation away from the truth, or towards it?4. The subject's dominant personality traits This is where we see things as narcissism, or human indifference, and many other personality traits that show up in criminal investigations. Law Enforcement may struggle when it comes to initial deception detection but it is only until they learn how the deceptive suspect can and will guide them to the truth. But Law Enforcement does not struggle with psycho-linguistic profiling; that is, profiling based solely upon the language. They grasp the personality traits well because they deal with them each and every day. Law Enforcement's experiences, daily, lead them to outscore their non-law enforcement counter parts in psycho-linguistic analysis; they hold a very sober minded view of human nature, and are rarely self deceived by narrative. Why is this?In part, their exposure to human nature means, even in rural communities, incessantly being in a position where they never know if they are going to have their lives threatened. Few can grasp how this wears down the mind and the immune system. Coping with this can be at times, even more challenging in locales where violence is not expected as it is in a high crime city. In high crime/high violence locales, the element of surprise is lessened. Both professionals must learn to cope in healthy ways. Predominantly, however, it is pragmatism that keeps them from being self deceived by narrative:They cannot afford to allow emotion, belief, or ideology to over rule anything: they have a case to be solved. In areas where leaders operate under the deception of "political correctness", the public often rails at law enforcement. It is mostly unjust. Rank and file investigators are often represented by those they do not consider to be "cops" but politicians, and the madness of such impacts them as it does the population. Investigators, like analysts, care for nothing but the truth. The case demands it. The interview is waiting; the evidence is guiding, there is a polygraph to review and...there are confessions and convictions. In other words, they do not "play" analysis as if it was a game; they not theoretical. This is not to say that theoretical work is of no value; it has value. But its value is seen in its testings and results. Law Enforcement professional men and women do not have time to debate the latest politically correct wave of belief; they have crime to solve. They have truth to find. They have little time and even less care for politicians. They understand what psychological impact a successful theft has upon the thief, even when politicians do not. They know what desensitization to violence looks like, first hand, even if they do not possess the vocabulary of the DSM. Most professionals in law enforcement have extensive experience dealing directly with human nature, making fine sounding platitudes valueless to them. Professionals in training treasure the input of other professionals, as iron sharpens iron, they thrive on peer review of their work. One of the most common expressions I hear is,"I wish I could do the same high level of work alone that I do in team analysis!" For training in law enforcement, see Hyatt Analysis Services.The training is in seminar, or it is in your home. Both types of trainings are supported by 12 months of e support and allow for potentially joining live team analysis online, with investigators, analysts and professionals of many fields, from around the globe.

72 comments:

MODEL WHO CLAIMS SHE WAS ABDUCTED AND SOLD ON DARK WEB SAYS SHE WANTS TO MAKE DOCUMENTARY

The model, who was allegedly drugged and kidnapped with the intent of being trafficked online, says that she may make a career change. According to the Metro, she told ITV she isn't ruling out creating a documentary or book about her ordeal. "It’s good to take opportunities in order to raise awareness about it," she says.

The 20-year-old budding model says that she went to Italy for a gig booked by her agent. When she got there, men drugged and abducted her. They told her that their plan was to sell her for the purposes of sex on the Dark Web. Her six-day ordeal ultimately ended when the men found out that she was a mother (the gang allegedly doesn't kidnap mothers). One man was later arrested when he took her to the British Consulate.

News of the possible documentary was met with mixed reviews on social media. Some felt that it was a ploy to bring the model publicity— and they questioned the veracity of her story.

Kara Holdsworth @karawytheOh god a book or a documentary. You have just confirmed where everyone thought this was going. Her agents should be ashamed! #ChloeAyling

A new tip in the Natalee Holloway investigation has led to the discovery of human remains in Aruba, 12 years after the teenager disappeared while vacationing on the tropical island to celebrate her high school graduation.

A former roommate of Joran van der Sloot's best friend told Natalee's father Dave Holloway that the young woman was buried in a park near her hotel on the island.

That man, Gabriel, said van der Sloot disposed of the body with help from his father Paulus after Natalee choked to death on her own vomit soon after she was given a drink that had been spiked with GHB.

Van der Sloot revealed this to his best friend John, who then repeated the information to Gabriel while the two were living together over a decade ago.

Dave announced on Wednesday while appearing on Today that he followed up on that tip, and soon after remains were found.

Those remains are now undergoing DNA testing and results should be back in the next month, which could finally lead to some closure for the family of the missing Alabama teenager.

This will all be part of 'The Disappearance of Natalee Holloway,' a docuseries premiering this Saturday at 7pm on Oxygen and ending right around the time the results come back from that DNA test.

'We did an 18-month undercover investigation with an informant who was friends with an individual who had personal knowledge from Joran van der Sloot,' said Dave.

'And had information that took us to a spot where remains were found. And we took those remains and had those remains tested. And they just returned last week they are human remains.'

Dave said he is being careful however to not rush to any conclusions.

'Throughout this process, over the last 12 years, Matt, we had a number of disappointments. I put up a wall, trying to find something that is not going to disappointment,' Dave told Matt Lauer.

'And when we determined these remains were human, I was shocked. And I know that there's a possibility this could be someone else. And I'm just trying to wait and see.'

If they are Natalee's remains, Dave said he will be happy that the mystery has finally come to 'an end.'

He also said in the interview that he did not initially share any information about his investigation with family members, not wanting them to be disappointed again after so many false leads.

In a clip from the upcoming series, Gabriel gives Dave a play-by-play account of what allegedly happened that night, saying that van der Sloot had asked the bartender for two drinks and to 'fix it good.'

Those drinks were laced with the date rape drug GHB according to Gabriel, and soon after van der Sloot gave one to Natalee she allegedly began 'foaming at the mouth.'

Van der Sloot, who has never been charged with the murder or disappearance of Natalee, has admitted to giving her a drink that night.

'He panicked, he didn't put her on her side or nothing, and she choked on her vomit,' claims Gabriel.

Van der Sloot did not say anything according to Gabriel because of the GHB, claiming he was giving the date rape drug to 'all the girls' and was afraid of getting in trouble with the police.

Gabriel said that instead, van der Sloot called his father Paulus, who allegedly arrived on the scene and got 'pissed' when he saw that the young woman was dead.

'And he says [to his son], "OK, wait here," and he goes back to the house and gets a burlap,' says Gabriel of Paulus' next move.

'He comes back and says, "OK, she doesn't fit here." So he stomps on her legs and cracks her legs and puts her in the burlap and folds her over.'

At that point Dave asks Gabriel to confirm that this was Paulus doing this, to which he responds: 'Yes.'

Paulus van der Sloot was also never charged with the murder or disappearance of Natalee, and passed away in 2010 after going into cardiac arrest while playing tennis.

'So they grab her and put her in the back of [Paulus'] car and they drive her to a park. Amd they pick a spot, puts her in, covers her up and his dad goes, "grab that cactus, that will just cover everything up,'' continues Gabriel.

'And his dad goes, "Don't you tell nobody. Nobody." But he told John.'

Dave has said in the past that when he met Paulus the man told him that he had to do everything he could to protect his son and would not cooperate with any investigation.

Van der Sloot is serving a 28-year sentence in Peru after being convicted of killing 21-year-old student Stephany Flores Ramírez in 2010, five years to the day of Holloway's death.

He is set to be extradited to the U.S. after completing his sentence in 2038 to face charges he tried to extort money from Holloway's family.

Beth Holloway, Natalee's mother, alleges that van der Sloot told her he would reveal where her daughter's body was located for $25,000 in cash.

Van der Sloot married Peruvian Leidy Figueroa in July of 2010.

A month later, authorities sent him to the infamous Challapalca prison located high in the Andes when he threatened to kill the warden of the lockup he was being held in near Lima.

Figueroa spoke for the first time soon after that in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, insisting that van der Sloot is 'gentle, sensitive, kind' and 'no monster.'

She also insisted that her husband had changed since they started an unlikely prison romance four years ago, saying he was a 'different man' after finding God and had been 'seeking forgiveness' for the evil he committed in the past.

Figueroa did not reveal what 'evil' was she was referring to at the time.

In September of that year she gave birth to the couple's first child, a baby girl.

They named the baby Dushy after van der Sloot's grandmother.

A few month after that van der Sloot was stabbed in prison according to Figueroa, though a warden later claimed that this was untrue.

Does anybody here also read Eyes For Lies blog? I'd been a long-time reader there, but I feel that her seemingly hatred for President Trump has clouded her reasoning and now I can't believe anything she posts and I'm beginning to think maybe she's been a fraud all along. If this isn't ok to post here, please delete it, Peter.-Kitt

she's a magician she just looks at someone and knows they are lying she was supposed to be the tv star on lie to me what a fraud. she claims to teach this but also claims that you can't do it unless you are one of the rare gifted ones i have not read her in years any fellow LE who even looks at her blog gets laughed at

"Today, August 16th at around 3:50PM, I decided to go to Wal-Mart for some toys for my new dog. When I first got out of my car, I noticed a large, grey van, driving imprudently through the parking lot. Before pulling into a handicapped spot in front of the entrance, it came within about a foot and a half of my body (I was walking very close to the parked cars). I disregarded this as carelessness and made my way to the store.

At the end of my shopping (At about 4:09PM), I walk to the self-checkout area. A middle-aged white woman speeds up her pace and shoves her cart in front of me, despite the fact that I only have about 5 items in hand. I don't pay any mind to it, and just assume she didn't notice me. Her young daughter (I'm assuming) tells her mother that one of the self-checkout machines is open. Her mother tells her she's wrong because the green light over the machine is off. I chime in. "There are two lanes open, actually." She walks over to the one on the right side, displaying disgruntled body language, but saying nothing. I shrug it off. Maybe she felt like I was attacking her by saying that.

As I'm ringing myself up, I can hear her saying a customer pushed her. Again, I brush this off. I knew I hadn't even touched her so I assumed she must have been talking about someone else. I accidentally enter my PIN when I'm using my mom's card, which extends my checkout time considerably. By the time I'm done, she and her daughter are leaving. While walking by me, she says, very loudly, "...because *this* customer is on her way to a Klan rally!" At this point I've figured out she must be upset with me for telling her that two lanes are open. The small group of 4-5 Wal-Mart employees standing between the self-checkout and the exit all gape at her in shock. Surprised myself, I ask the employees what they heard, and they verify what I perceived.

Thinking that she may try and confront me in the parking lot, I pull out my phone and begin recording. To my surprise, the woman is getting in the van that I had noted as a potential threat earlier. Her daughter was sitting in the car - through all of this, she only seemed embarrassed. The video you see below is what she said to me. I apologize for the floor being the primary focus; I was trying to be discreet because I have been threatened into deleting evidence in the past.

I went back into the store and some of the workers who witnessed the event offered to escort me to my car. I politely declined (as she had already left) and asked if it would be possible for me to view the security footage, so that I would have proof that I did not push her. I was informed that I would need to file a police report first, and that the police would get the video, not me. So for the time being, I cannot prove with video evidence that I did not touch her, but I plan on going to the police station once I am finished writing this. If anyone has any other suggestions on how to handle this situation, I would greatly appreciate them.

I was shaken by the event, but the greatest sorrow lies in the little girl who was with her. I wanted to implore her mother to set a better example, but I figured that she would only feel antagonized. I hope that little girl makes friends with a wide variety of diverse people and does not adopt the hatred her mother is attempting to cultivate.

My fellow people of color, please be careful. White supremacists are feeling more powerful than they have in years. You never know what will trigger them. Please do whatever you can to protect yourselves"

Some of the things that stood out to me were the changes in verb tense and the "around" followed by specific times. I don't have the skills to determine how truthful this is, but it seems off to me. Fake hate or a real encounter?

I base my opinion on things other than "this" n "that" or pronouns. Although, I don't think an angry customer would use "this" when "that" would be more appropriate unless that customer targeted the above (which is what it sounds like).

Time is critical in this narrative. If I were to approximate time I'd use appx. 3:45, 4:00 p.m., and so on. Definitely not leaving at appx. 4:09 for sure!

Color may factor into who may be telling the story. Gray van? Really? Why not silver? Gray is what you get when you mix black and white. Add yellow and you'll really get my drift.

Not to mention why would she feel the need to prove she did not touch the woman when the police have not come to her as of yet? People accidentally touch others all the time in stores.

Now, all bow yer heads for a moment of prayer and repeat after me:

"My fellow people of color, please be careful. White supremacists are feeling more powerful than they have in years. You never know what will trigger them. Please do whatever you can to protect yourselves"

It wasn't too memorable or traumatic or she wouldn't have needed to record the events first. An encounter with a rude person is part of everyday life. We've all had them.

More recently, while leaving a grocery store, a man said to me: "I need some change. yes, I just got out of prison and am a thuggy, gangster."

Okay. I ignored him thinking someone will open up on him soon because of his unbridled honesty. Sure enough, before I unloaded my cart into the car, he was being beat about the head and shoulders by one man and another was on the way to assist.

I did not rush home to record the details as that's something a person isn't likely to forget soon.

Do you at least have the article that has the video? The 'encounter' seems to me have some truth to it via van and upset woman with child. The 'details' give me a feeling of not enough proof so hype it up for the drama a bit game. Was this before or after the tiki torch protest lol?

She sounds like a beginner terror stalker herself. Note the need to record everything with precision.. They type of person that gets involved with crime solving blogs such as webb sleuts or children helper stalkers that gathers toys (for her dog of course) to throw on their property (hot wheels, etc. depending upon the missing child). The fact that the obtuse woman was handicapped hasn't escaped anyone only over shawdowed by her need to have access to Wal-marts security cameras (which is what they try to do with the toys for their dogs).

However, what one records on their own property is still theirs until a legal action is able to take over and at that point it can either be handed over of destroyed accidentally.

Ya,that part jumped out at me too. Maybe she 'borrows' it when asking of not? Maybe she was the one who said those words to the woman and her little girl.

Maybe she was the one who 'drove around' them and almost hit them? Reversing the story a bit and wanted to know if her but was on camera to cover it up more then just what she typed up in her 'explanations' that now have read?

Maybe to make it more clear and believable,she says she's 'gong to' talk to the police 'after' she posted her words. Maybe she was the one on her way to the rally.

Now that I think about it more,what if she wanted to kidnap and it didn't go out as planned? So she wanted to see how much 'trouble' she could be/gotten in by seeing the video. I don't believe she'll talk to the police,as if this was a kidnap sting,she'd have to go and more stories up and then she'd get caught. Either she asked for the video and they declined as they may use it.

Could you explain "editorializing" some more?What would be the difference between telling a story or telling a real event ? Or would that only be the use/change of verbs? Or can there be other things that show?

'I politely declined (as she had already left) and asked if it would be possible for me to view the security footage, so that I would have proof that I did not push her.'

If she did not push her, she would not need to view the security footage herself - she would already be certain the footage would show that she had not pushed her. She wants to know what it might show, which is something different.

C'mon gals! Just read it without statement analysis. Does this person not remind you of someone you know or have met?

Who gets distracted at a self check out? For pete's sake! Those things demand all your attention regardless of whose card you are using (why mention having her mother's card?) The acoustics in those large buildings are not conducive to hearing anyone else unless they are yelling.

She states the woman has been 1) careless driver, 2)me first shopper and inconsiderate,3)Loud an mouthy, 4)confrontational and maybe will lie about an assualt

so she......wait for it...........

goes out into the parking lot armed with only video equipment of her own in the form of a cell phone.

Because...............someone was ignorant acting and rude.

Traumatic? I think not.

I've walked out of a store and headed for the car to hear, "I'm gonna kill you ni**er! Get away, I'll shoot! blah, blah, blah.....That's what's wrong with this country.

Never would I dream of whooping out a cell phone an taping it. Nor would I get in the car and become a witness within range in case the white dude pulled the trigger.I walked out into the parking lot and pretended not to notice and positioned myself behind his vehicle. I did not think he could shoot backwards. And, if he did, I'd have his info and not the other way around. He waved as he left after the black man he screamed at crossed my path. He knew I heard it.

Peter, Why is Antifa's violence being given approval & praise by the masses? I am seeing it being defended by so many people. I am seeing rationales like "Nazis deserve to be killed", etc. Do these people not understand that these so-called "Nazis" are not the same as the actual Nazis who were running concentration camps & killimg millions? Do people not understand that segregation or slavery has not been reinstated due to several hundred white Nationalists assembling around a statue? I guess what I am asking is how is violence being widely justified when it is being usdd in response to basically nothing ie there is nithing to overthrow. Am I not understanding something?

The writer, after some consideration, decided to go to Walmart in order to get some toys for her new dog.

I don’t need to know why she went to Walmart - she wants the reader to know that after some consideration, she went out to Walmart for the benefit of her new dog.

She wants the reader to know first, she is a caring dog owner, who went out especially for some dog toys.

She noticed a large grey van driving ‘imprudently’ through the parking lot. Vans don’t drive through parking lots, imprudently, or otherwise. She doesn’t notice the driver, only the van driving imprudently. It’s a strange choice of word - the reader is to accept that the imprudently driven van was also guilty of carelessness in driving itself too close to the reader’s body before it pulled into a handicapped spot in front of the entrance. That’s usually where those spaces are - does it annoy her that the imprudent careless van is able to park in front of the entrance?

‘I disregarded this as carelessness’ - is she suggesting it may have been otherwise, the van drove close to her more intentionally?

‘A middle-aged white woman speeds up her pace and shoves her cart in front of me, despite the fact that I only have about 5 items in hand. I don't pay any mind to it, and just assume she didn't notice me.’

If the white woman shoved her cart in front of her, she must have noticed her? It is written as though the writer found it intentional - ‘she speeds up her pace and shoves her car in front of me’. She says she didn’t pay any mind to it, when obviously she did, in order to write about it. She assumed she didn’t notice her - but she already said she sped up her pace and shoved the cart in front of her.

‘She walks over to the one on the right side, displaying disgruntled body language, but saying nothing. I shrug it off. Maybe she felt like I was attacking her by saying that.’

‘Displaying disgruntled body language’ - well, she did park in a handicapped space. The writer suggests the woman maybe ‘felt like I was attacking her’ - maybe she just felt unwell and didn’t like the snarky tone - ‘actually’.

‘As I'm ringing myself up, I can hear her saying a customer pushed her. Again, I brush this off. I knew I hadn't even touched her so I assumed she must have been talking about someone else.’

She brushes ‘this’ off - she brushes what off?she would have no need to ‘brush off’ the comment if she did not think it could apply to her. I think she assumes she is the customer about whom the woman complained, whilst claiming to assume she must have been talking about someone else.

Why ‘I assumed she must have been’ rather than ‘I knew she was talking about someone else’

Spins out the story whilst casually dropping in that she was using her mother’s card. The reader doesn’t need to know about her checkout problems, or that she is using her mother’s card. Is there some reason why she needs to include this?

By the time I'm done, she and her daughter are leaving. While walking by me, she says, very loudly, "...because *this* customer is on her way to a Klan rally!" At this point I've figured out she must be upset with me for telling her that two lanes are open. The small group of 4-5 Wal-Mart employees standing between the self-checkout and the exit all gape at her in shock. Surprised myself, I ask the employees what they heard, and they verify what I perceived.’

‘By the time I’m done, she and her daughter are leaving’ - as though the world waits upon her. She could have said she and they left at the same time - seems egotistical in the phrasing, by the time she is done?

‘While walking by me, she says, very loudly, "...because *this* customer is on her way to a Klan rally!"’

Very loudly, though she only hears the last few words. The woman may have said that, but without what might have preceded it the context is open to guesses. It may have been sarcasm and a reaction to a dispute at the checkout, where she complained ‘a customer’, whom the writer seems to identify as herself, had pushed her.

‘The small group of 4-5 Wal-Mart employees standing between the self-checkout and the exit’ (not implying they are lazy or anything - maybe their shift just finished) ‘all gape at her in shock’.

‘Surprised myself, I ask the employees what they heard, and they verify what I perceived.’‘They verify what I perceived’ - unexpected - more expected for what she is conveying would be, ‘they agreed with me’. She does not want to say ‘they agreed with me’ - also she only ‘perceived’ what had been said - rather than ‘heard’. That was half-hearted agreement, methinks. Nobody says ‘they verify what I perceived’ as part of ordinary speech - she’s only writing about a comment allegedly heard in Walmart.

‘Thinking that she may try and confront me in the parking lot, I pull out my phone and begin recording. To my surprise, the woman is getting in the van that I had noted as a potential threat earlier. Her daughter was sitting in the car - through all of this, she only seemed embarrassed.’

I think it was no surprise that the woman who complained she was pushed is also the imprudent careless van. The daughter felt more than embarrassed.

‘The video you see below is what she said to me. I apologize for the floor being the primary focus; I was trying to be discreet because I have been threatened into deleting evidence in the past.’

She is not new to creating confrontational videos.

‘I went back into the store and some of the workers who witnessed the event offered to escort me to my car. I politely declined (as she had already left) and asked if it would be possible for me to view the security footage, so that I would have proof that I did not push her. I was informed that I would need to file a police report first, and that the police would get the video, not me. So for the time being, I cannot prove with video evidence that I did not touch her, but I plan on going to the police station once I am finished writing this. If anyone has any other suggestions on how to handle this situation, I would greatly appreciate them.’

They offered to her escort her, and she politely declined. She asked if it would be possible to view the security footage… any suggestions she would greatly appreciate. Reader note, she is a lady. :)

She wanted to ‘get’ the video footage? She was informed, ‘The police would ‘get’ the video, not me.’

‘So for the time being, I cannot prove with video evidence that I did not touch her, but I plan on going to the police station once I am finished writing this.’

The complaint was that the woman was pushed, not ‘touched’. What comes after the ‘but’, weakens what went before, so maybe she does not really want to prove with video evidence that she did not touch her - as ‘touching’ was not the complaint.

I was shaken by the event, but the greatest sorrow lies in the little girl who was with her. I wanted to implore her mother to set a better example, but I figured that she would only feel antagonized. I hope that little girl makes friends with a wide variety of diverse people and does not adopt the hatred her mother is attempting to cultivate.

My fellow people of color, please be careful. White supremacists are feeling more powerful than they have in years. You never know what will trigger them. Please do whatever you can to protect yourselves"

I was shaken by the event, but the greatest sorrow lies in the little girl who was with her. I wanted to implore her mother to set a better example, but I figured that she would only feel antagonized. I hope that little girl makes friends with a wide variety of diverse people and does not adopt the hatred her mother is attempting to cultivate.

I don’t see she has sorrow in the story or it's telling - I think it was the little girl who was shaken by the ‘event’. It would be more an unfortunate incident to someone who did not intend it to be seen as an ‘event’.

‘My fellow people of color, please be careful. White supremacists are feeling more powerful than they have in years. You never know what will trigger them. Please do whatever you can to protect yourselves" ‘

‘You never know what will trigger them’ - she likes to antagonise disabled white people (imprudent careless vans) in order to elicit video worthy reactions (‘trigger them’)?

The writer, in various ways, tries to convince the reader that she is a well motivated person. I think she targeted the woman in the store because she believed, or would like to believe, she drove too close to her in the parking lot - she removes the driver from the van - that seems an attempt to hide that she had identified her before she had even entered the store.

It might be a multi-purpose don’t look at it that way, see it this way - CYA and distraction story which somehow relates to the dog, and as to why she went shopping with her mother’s card. She maybe knows the WalMart employees and attempted to intimidate them into agreeing with what she heard, and into giving her the video - which when they would not, she wrote the FB post to account for what might be on the video - no sound, so she made her own CYA ‘soundtrack’. Maybe she was embarrassed if she needed assistance at the checkout and she knew the assistant, who knew it was her mother’s card. It’s interesting she mentioned it - also she introduced the idea that the woman would feel ‘antagonized’ if she gave her a pep talk on setting a good example - as if she already didn’t feel antagonised?

What is it about? Did she spin the woman into a white supremacist to cover for something which happened at the checkout? Did she go out with the intention of becoming the ‘victim’ of a white supremacist - seems a bit lame if she could only find a disabled woman with ‘disgruntled body language’ out shopping with her little girl. I think she targeted her, because she removed her from the van at the outset.

I mean, I would like to know did she go out with the intention to make a video, or to get dog toys - and why is she using her mother's card? Maybe she needed assistance st the checkout, and she knew the assistant, and the asssitant saw she was using her mother's card, which embarrassed her, so she created the white supremacist distraction?

habit, even cultural story telling; and the habit will be seen in consistency. Some Irish story tellers use present tense language, and do so consistently.

deception: it may indicate that the subject is lying

PTSD: It may be that the event is "live" and "present" for the subject. We see this in extreme cases of domestic violence and sexual abuse, as well as in combat vets. They will speak in the present tense because the violence, for example, is as present today (often in nightmares and hyper vigilance) as it was when it happened. The key is to listen for consistency in language.

Regardless of the reason, it is, percentage wise, not reliable in cases and the wise analyst, like the wise cross-examining attorney, will pounce on any inconsistency is verb use.

---

From her verb use, I'd say her account is largely unreliable - though she did go to buy toys for the dog?

George Carroll stabbed to death in his Brookln neighborhood by a stranger on the sidewalk infront of his wife:No arrests have been made in the incident and police have not provided a description of the man.

NOT A WORD ON ANY NEWS SITES PROVIDING THE DESRIPTION OF THE MURDERER!!!!!!!! NOTHING.....

Maybe she had her mother's card or a 'fake' alias one,so when she tries to pull stunts like this and she (may) ends up on camera they can't 'locate' her with her real name if they are 'looking' for her in these 'events'?

I think she comes across as aggressive - if that's not so, she is overly defensive?

Is 'I was ringing myself up' a checkout thing people say there? If I was ringing myself up, I'd be phoning home. Made me wonder if she was posting on FB while she was in the store - that would be like ringing yourself up... sort of. I have not heard it of self checkout - here it would be 'I was scanning my goods' or 'scanning in my goods'.

I think that she has been threatened to delete 'potential' evidence in the past says she looks for trouble. She says only potential evidence - if crimes were committed against her, would she not say 'evidence' rather than potential evidence?

I think 'attacked', 'antagonise' and 'confront' are there because she was attacking, antagonising and intending to confront the woman. She did not need to encounter her in the parking lot as she had left ahead of her, also she was not parked in the same place?

‘Imprudently’‘Carelessness’A middle-aged white woman speeds up her pace and shoves her cart in front of me’‘Displaying disgruntled body language, but saying nothing’‘Maybe she felt like I was attacking her by saying that.’As I'm ringing myself up, I can hear her saying a customer pushed her.While walking by me, she says, very loudly, "...because *this* customer is on her way to a Klan rally!" ‘Thinking that she may try and confront me in the parking lot’She had noted the van as a ‘potential threat’ earlier‘I have been threatened into deleting potential evidence in the past’ - ‘She would only feel antagonised’‘The hatred her mother is attempting to cultivate’‘Do whatever you can to protect yourselves’

"Ringing myself up" sounds like an employee's terms when 'used to ringing a customer up' so when an employee does the self check out,they are 'in the language' of a clerk that check's ppl out. She could also be 'used' to checking herself out in this store,so it's a habitual lingo for her?

Yes,the part about 'evidence' made me think she's had 'encounters of the 'middle aged' kind' or anyone else for that matter and so she 'uses' her phone as 'proof' lol.

@jude..."ringing up" is what I'd say, though someone younger may use scanning. Depends, I guess, on where you live and the culture of the area. She may live in an area where racial issue are surfacing and causing undue stress to every day activities.(Older people have been through it and aren't as sensitive)

In the video, what was said? Is it a threat? (evidence)

Is this why she went back inside?Did this handicap woman make her presence known to other customers?

Idle staff may well be security typically found near the entrance and exit doors of most Wal-marts. They watch, check register tapes, give stamps for returns, and provide directory assistance (1-3 people).

Self check outs are normally spacious with one person available to assist; hence, 4-5 people. Though the check out counter is tiny, any one crowding space would be noticed as information comes across the screen and a woman typically leaves her purse in the cart. Try moving it elsewhere and it may be flagged as unpaid merchandise.

Wal-mart is known as the crime capital in most cities across the USA. More people, more problems.

Her Facebook post was most likely meant for friends and family and she probably never expected it to become national news...unless the handicap woman threatened her over racial issues.

Yes, it would be helpful to see the video - did she approach the woman as she was getting into her van/car - or did the woman call out to her as she was getting into her van/car? What did she say. I might think differently if I knew, or think she had been provoked, or that she really was a white supremacist who had deliberately drove her van too close to the other woman's body.

I would wager a guess at why "body" was used. Perhaps she noticed something strange about the way the woman walked (obviously she could since she had a cart and not a scooter) and could see herself forced to park in handicap if the woman's driving skills did not improve. Consider the first paragraph begins her story and the second concludes the same tale. Thereafter is filled with feelings and assumed observances an the basic rationale for why this event belong on Facebook in the first place. Her feelings are for the audience of those who know her-friends and family-and will see things her way.

Maybe the white woman was an absolute beotch. They do exist, you know. Or, threatened to sue her for pushing her in the store (if that were about to happen, she would have summoned store security herself or followed her to her car to get her identity). What she has in an audio as she has stuck that camera in someone's face at some time or the other and regretted it.(I wonder about what she is teaching children at this point about as much as I wonder why it ever ended up in rjb's feed).

However, assuming she could see the store's cameras is way off! It makes me think she believes the event will be on the nightly news. Thus far it doesn't sound like any big deal. Perhaps the woman is on some medication and did accuse or threaten her in some way. She asks for advice, not from the whole world I assume, but from people who know her. In reality, and at the time she wrote that reality had escaped her, all she can do is wait. She obviously felt the woman was out to get her nearly hitting her in the parking lot then showing up at the same time at checkout. It is odd in a store as large as Walmart, but can happen. (I'd be worried if I saw her near my home or behind me again in Walmart or somewhere else I go if it isn't a tiny town).

Where do these people live? Charlottesville, VA, Memphis, Tenn., Detroit, Mich., somewhere California. It would make a difference.

Everyone needs to defend themselves these days as others are encroaching the rights of their fellow man/woman; not just people of color.

OT: It might be interesting to revisit original analysis on Perry Noble's Amanda Blackburn eulogy.

There were some words that were transcribed incorrectly, specifically "I said" should have been "I went".

This is the part of the eulogy where Perry talks about "somebody said something" about a gunshot, in a jumble of temporal lacunae that includes about an hour in a meeting and ends with him being told that Amanda has been killed ... but he is still supposedly talking about Tuesday morning...

Im very worried about our country bc of Antifa & those even in the 40-50 yr old age group who think violence is justified if someone does "hate speech" or holds up an American flag! I told someone "I can think for my friggin self...I dont need Antifa throwing rocks at hate speakers". So concerned.

The old manual cash registers used to make a ringing sound as the keys were pushed down with quite a bit of force to cause the numbers to rise into the display window. Maybe she is more than middle aged.

I think the writer wants to portray herself as someone who gets slighted but is such a good person she doesn't allow it to bother her.

I wonder why the need to change the description of the "van", when the woman was getting into it, to "car" when the girl was sitting in it.

How can these Antifas be like a virus spreading to England? Throwing hissy-fit over a guy quietly holding a free speech sign...the Antifas are like hyoerventilating and having hissy fithttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plyC2ipo2B4

My guess to why van changed to car is another reason why there is no video...she keyed it or something else while noticing how the girl "only" seemed embarrassed.

(Children aren't as into the melodramas of adults as they typically have their own and only wish to get home and grab the remote or computer.) Its akin to Alex Jones suggesting victims of Sandy Hook shouldn't focus on burying an grieving the loss of their children, but instead focus on weird research and other oddball theories he supports.

It is strange. Strange, indeed. Makes me wonder how and why it ended up in rjb's Facebook feed. Strange, indeed

The left-chaos sure seems pre planned with never ending agitation based on fake premises for the purpose of distracting from the mountain of dnc crimes. As charles barkley said, he and most blacks never think about those statues. I never have. What dispicable direction for the dnc. Sickening.

Anonymous Anonymous said...@11:02, Whats scary is that police are being forced to cave in to Antifa....they are having to tell people who are not doing or saying anything racist to leave. Antifa is gaining power.

I think rank and file police are generally conservative in thought and in their lives.The leadership is often made up of political opportunists and left minded people who align with left leaning politicians who elevated them in the departments.

I would venture to say many police on the line are unhappy with the positions they are placed in but who among them want to risk their career?

In the near future I do not see a catalyst to change this. Further out people will have to choose a side but it may be too late.

Yes you are correct, people will have to choose sides due to the violent coercion of the left. How these leftists came to view violence as "cute" is beyond me. I see within the 40-50 yr old population the violent Antifa is justified using the complaint "how can you use moral relativism (to condemn Antifa violence)? Its like hey retards, do you retards understand that when Antifa smashes someone's head in with a brick its just as real as it would be if the KKK did that to someone? These frighin idiots view violence itself as being relative...if the left does it to someone then it doesnt really hurt, it doesnt really smash in the person's head....the far left is delusional, entitled & whatever they do is A-OK....probably the sake retarded logic that they use when they say 4-7 month old fetuses dont feel pain bc it just doesnt fit into their fantasy of how reality works to SERVE THEM AND THEIR WISHES. The left has always showed these very dangerous signs of fascist thinking...we are now seeing them play out in the public arena. Its only a matter of time till they start randomnly attacking people in stores, etc people just going aboit their daily business, in my opinion...I would consider carrying pepperspray on me at all times in case one attacks me either by breaking into my home and attacking me or attacking me as I go about my daily business.

Ann, the story is alot off. Its not the same. It will be on Youtube soon if anything comes of it. Wal mart hosts many brawls and women are at the center of most.It is sad when you see photos of the elderly getting beaten for shopping or working at walmart. Most of the fights involve blacks, though. Typically, whenever a white woman is the aggressor, she gets beat up.

It's that Walmart has more than most retailers customers from all walks of life. These people often forget others are near. I had to wait way too long to buy a pack of razors in cosmetics because some Mexican man and woman was trying to get them to take his battery (old) in return and pay for a new one. There was a lot of argument going on-all in Spanish-over what should have been a no-brainer. (BTW, Sears doesn't prorate batteries for white women in some states and you can expect to have your vehicle towed 30 miles or more to the original point of purchase if it goes kapoot). Don't get mad. Don't buy from them ever again.

It's not the greatest place to shop, but in many areas they have eliminated all competition. Why people continue to be abused over prices that can often be beat is beyond me. I soured on it long ago when I asked for a price check on a clearance item and the cashier flat out told me that people in that area did not look at price. Lol! Jeesh! Another time, in the same store, I went through the check out an a woman behind me forgot something, backed out and as she turned she accidentally spilled a soft drink she had bought at one of their in store fast food places.She apologized immediately and was walking out of the area when the man that just "rang" me up leaned over and told a female employee:"Make her clean it up!" (Which I think the woman would have done if given the supplies without being asked).

General nastiness becoming the norm. From both customers and employees.Most these raging conflicts can be avoided.

Ya,I 'don't mind' walmart sometimes. What gets me is what is it that causes walmart to be the circus near you type aka anyone can walk in looking weird/do weird things. Let alone if a fight goes out,SOMEONE ELSE has to call cops and not the store clerks? I understand for prices on some stuff and if you can't help having to go there,but 'competition' is good sometimes and gives ppl more 'options' to choose from when going shopping.

I hate the 'dim' lights,I don;'t care if it's for 'saving energy'. The dam lights make me feel down and creepy like i'm in a jail shopping center for inmates haha when I get out it's like ahhh nice and bright now haha.

Ann, it's volume. If you were to count the people and measure that count against the weird ones, less than 1% would be to the extreme. It's that percentage that make Youtube.

Their checkouts are squeezed together tightly (not self-checkouts)and people expect to be processed like items on a conveyor belt. We all are trained to crowd and be rude.They may have fifty or sixty registers, but only four or five will be open at any given time.Nine times out of ten, the people reaching and grabbing around people or chewing out the cashier or security people at the door have no where else to be, yet feel important pushing others around.

Elderly people fair poorly in those stores as they weren't the norm in their day. Pharmacy waiters block the shelves as there is no where to sit, and many-still in pain-stand patiently and take crap off other customers to save a couple bucks on meds.They may pay 30% more on groceries, though, to keep from driving elsewhere and being pushed around again.

Younger people often order online. Older people do not.

Their parking lots are often filled with criminals waiting to pounce on someone. It's a ready pool of potential targets.